“In recent decades we have lost sight of the historic achievement that empowered the individual. The religious, legal and political roots of this great achievement are no longer reverently taught in high schools, colleges and universities or respected by our government. The voices that reach us through the millennia and connect us to our culture are being silenced by ‘political correctness’ and ‘the war on terror.’ Prayer has been driven from schools and Christian religious symbols from public life. Constitutional protections have been diminished by hegemonic political ambitions. Indefinite detention, torture, and murder are now acknowledged practices of the United States government. The historic achievement of due process has been rolled back. Tyranny has re-emerged.”–Paul Craig Roberts

“Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix’… Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years… The Obama administration has touted its successes against the terrorist network, formally acknowledging for the first time the United States’ use of armed drones. Less visible is the extent to which Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly PERMANENT WAR.”–Greg Miller

“[T]he legal foundation for U.S. counterterrorism strategy is partially based on “the Congressional authorization to use military force” (AUMF) that was passed after 9/11… Specifically it seems to be based on an interpretation of the AUMF that was “reaffirmed” by the indefinite detention clause of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)… This explains why Obama is fighting so hard to keep the indefinite detention clause in effect… In court the government argued that the indefinite detention clause is simply a “reaffirmation” of the Authorization Use Of Military Force (AUMF), which gives the president authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those … [who] aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons.” In the NDAA lawsuit, the government argued that the NDAA §1021 is simply an ‘affirmation’ or ‘reaffirmation’ of the AUMF… But the NDAA adds language to the AUMF when it says ‘The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, INCLUDING ANY PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED A BELLIGERENT ACT, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces.’ That extra part is what Judge Katherine Forrest ruled unconstitutionally vague.”–Michael Kelley

“It may seem like imprisoning an American citizen without charges or trial transgresses against the United States Constitution and basic norms of Western justice dating back to the Magna Carta… It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would be uncontroversial… It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat the issue with at least as much urgency as “the fiscal cliff” or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for Cabinet posts… It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention… But it isn’t so.”–Conor Friedersdorf

“Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.”–Charlie Savage

“Over the past year I and other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg have pressed a lawsuit in the federal courts to nullify Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This egregious section, which permits the government to use the military to detain U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers, could have been easily fixed by Congress. The Senate and House had the opportunity this month to include in the 2013 version of the NDAA an unequivocal statement that all U.S. citizens would be exempt from 1021(b)(2), leaving the section to apply only to foreigners. But restoring due process for citizens was something the Republicans and the Democrats, along with the White House, refused to do. The fate of some of our most basic and important rights—ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution—will be decided in the next few months in the courts. If the courts fail us, a gulag state will be cemented into place.”–Chris Hedges